[fpc-devel]BPW incompatibility: missing feature

[Florian Klaempfl]

At 11:38 04.04.02 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello Florian and all,
>FK> If you really need it, I guess you can make a patch, Pavel :) !
>Of cource, I can could solve my problem (rewriting Object Windows)
>without compiler patching but I think not only about my problems but
>also about compiler.

I meant a compiler patch to support dynamic methods with virtual <ord. value>;

>Now I generated some asm-files hoping to find
>differences between internal realization of virtual and dynamic
>methods at least in new-style classes. At least now I see no
>differences and think that in FPC, unlike Delphi, 'dynamic' and
>'virtual' methods in classes are the same. Therefore I don't
>understand how to implement indexes here without big modifications
>of methods handling (writing full support of dynamic metods like in
>Delphi). It's true?

Yes, FPC doesn't distinguis between dynamic and virtual because the data
segment isn't limited to 64kB.

virtual XXX; doesn't mean necessarily that the method uses the dynamic calling
conventions! From the semantic point of view it means only that the
method can be identified by a ordinal number. The dynamic calling convention
isn't necessary to compile the OWL, it saves only space in data segment which
was important in 16 Bit times.

Look at the following log entry in hcgdata.pas (at least 1.0.x branch)

   Revision 1.24  2000/01/28 23:17:53  florian
     * virtual XXXX; support for objects, only if -dWITHDMT is defined

I don't know if -dWITHDMT still works, but it's worth a try :)

Of course, you've to rewrite the dispatcher in the OWL, but this shouldn't be
a problem.


>Btw, is using of ONLY INTERFACE PARTS of OW units a disturbance of
>Borland's (C)?

At least not in Europe.